Acta Bioethica 2014; 20 (1): 93-97
SCIENTIFIC RETRACTION: A SYNONYM FOR
PSEUDOSCIENCE?
Bhavisha P. Sheth1, Vrinda S. Thaker1
Abstract: The phenomenon of scientific retraction is a shameful act for the scientific community, but a necessity to maintain
the purity of science. The two main causes for retractions include plagiarism and research misconduct. The post retraction
citation of articles is again a repetition of inappropriateness. Hence the editorial, peer review policies should be revised and
the retractions should be publicized more to avoid the citation of the invalid literature. Also, the scientific readership has a
responsibility to evaluate the scientific validity of published studies.
Key words: retraction, plagiarism, misconduct, citation
Retractación científica: ¿un sinónimo de seudociencia?
Resumen: El fenómeno de la retractación científica constituye una vergüenza para la comunidad científica, pero es necesario
para mantener la pureza de la ciencia. Las dos causas principales de retractación son el plagio y faltas en la conducta de investigación. La citación de artículos posterior a su retractación es, de nuevo, una repetición inapropiada. Por lo tanto, la editorial
y las normas de evaluación por pares debieran revisarse y las retractaciones publicarse más para evitar las citaciones de literatura
inválida. También los lectores científicos tienen la responsabilidad de evaluar la validez científica de los estudios publicados.
Palabras clave: retractación, plagio, faltas en la conducta de investigación, citación
Retratação científica: um sinônimo de pseudociência?
Resumo: O fenômeno de retratação científica é uma vergonhosa atitude para a comunidade científica, mas uma necessidade
para manter a pureza da ciência. As duas principais causas para a retratação incluem o plágio e a má conduta na pesquisa. A
citação após retratação de artigos é novamente uma repetida inadequação. Daí porque o editorial e a política de revisão por
pares devem ser revistas e as retratações deveriam ser mais divulgadas para evitar uma citação inválida da literatura. Ademais,
o revisor científico tem uma responsabilidade de avaliar a validade científica dos estudos publicados.
Palavras-chave: retratação, plágio, má conduta, citação
Department of Biosciences, Saurashtra University, Rajkot Gujarat, India
Correspondence: [email protected]
1
93
Scientific Retraction: A synonym for pseudoscience? - Bhavisha P. Sheth, Vrinda S. Thaker
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning
“knowledge”) is an endeavor that systematizes
knowledge in the form of testable explanations
and predictions of the worldly facts(1). Scholastic
publishing is the process of placing the results of
one’s research into the literature. Publication in
scholarly journals is an essential part of the scientific research process(2). The purpose of it being
the updating and sharing of knowledge in broad
sense along with other implicit factors like funding, carrier advancement, competitive grants,
awards etc.(3). Every discipline relies on the integrity of its literature. The implicit assumption
about the authors is that their contributions to
journals reflect their meticulousness and honesty. Everybody concerned to the discipline has a
vested interest in the accuracy and authenticity of
what is communicated. Henceforth all the literature resources maintain high standards to ensure
the legitimacy of the research and scientific conduct(4).
In general, a retraction of a published scientific article indicates that the original article should not
have been published and that its data and conclusions should not be used as part of the foundation
for future research. Retractions always negate the
author’s previous public support for the original
statement. They typically indicate a major problem with the research of enough significance to
invalidate its findings. As such, they represent a
threat both to the integrity of the scientific literature and to any future studies based on the erroneous conclusions(5). It is a shameful phenomenon for the scientific community as a whole; as
ethics are the base of science and breaching those
indicate pseudoscience and dishonesty.
Causes and statistical implications
Approximately, 1.4 million papers are published
every year, only a few of them are retracted and
fewer coming to the notice of the public. According to the data from Thomson Reuters “Web
of Science” database, courtesy of Times Higher
Education, five out of 689752 were retracted in
1990, which rose to the retraction of 95 papers
out of 1.4 million papers published in 2008. So,
the retractions are increasing rapidly, in line with
the number of publications. Figure 1 shows the
94 exponential increase in the Pubmed retractions
from 1977 to 2010(6).
Figure 1: The plot here shows exponential increase in the nº of retraction (Y axis) from 19772010 (X Axis)
But closer research shows that growing or not,
these formal retractions are likely just the tip of
the iceberg(7,8). Some of them are untouched of
the notice of the common public.
The two main causes of retractions of scientific
published articles are research error or misconduct and plagiarism. The former in the form of
inefficiency of the author to reproduce the results.
A more detailed explanation is as follows:
• Misconduct was classified, using the definitions of scientific misconduct from the US
Office of Science and Technology Policy,
as either fabrication (making up data or results and recording or reporting on them);
falsification (manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes; or changing or
omitting data or results such that the research
is not accurately represented in the research
record); or plagiarism (the appropriation of
another person’s ideas, processes, results, or
words without giving appropriate credit).
• Mistakes were defined as reported errors in
sampling, procedures, or data analysis; failure
to reproduce findings or accidental omission
of key information from methods or analysis(5).
Acta Bioethica 2014; 20 (1): 93-97
Retractions for fraud (data fabrication or data
falsification) may represent a purposeful effort
to deceive, a motivation fundamentally different
from those for error(6). Compared with an earlier
study(9) of retractions for the years 1966–1994,
the study by(10) found (1) a significantly higher rate of retraction (0.0021% versus 0.0065%,
p,0.0001 by test of proportions), (2) a decrease
in the mean time from publication to retraction
(from 28 months to 21 months), and (3) a decrease in the proportion of retractions initiated
by authors (from 81% to 67%) (see table 1), suggesting that others have become involved in oversight.
Table 1: Agents of retraction of scientific articles,
and reasons for retraction(10)
Variable
Budd’s study
Redman et al
study
(n=235)
(n=315)
Agent of retraction (per cent)
to have been copied from other papers. Based on
the study, researchers estimate that there may be
as many as 200,000 duplicates among some 17
million papers in leading research database Medline(12).
Checkpoints in Retraction
The actual reasons for the rising tide of retractions may be the rigorous post publication editorial process as well as the use of various plagiarism detection softwares. Plagiarism checker like
iThenticate is designed to catch misconduct and
plagiarism prior to submission, preventing the
need for retractions. One tool developed in 2006
by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner’s laboratory
at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center at Dallas is Déjà Vu(13), an open-access
database containing several thousand instances of
duplicate publication. It is based on the use of
text data mining algorithm eTBLAST(14), also
developed in the same lab.
Missing
-
4
Attention needed on post retraction citations
All authors
81
48
Little is known about the ultimate scientific fate
of retracted, invalid literature. The consequences
of scientific retractions are the inappropriate citation of the retracted articles. The continuation of
the citations of the retracted papers in literature
symbolizes the inadequacy of the current methods of notification. Institutions should promote
a culture of responsibility, supporting authors
to provide sound articles. Reviewers and readers
should raise concerns with the editor to enable
prompt and appropriate investigation. If substantiated, a retraction statement or expression of
concern should be publicized in both print and
electronic media according to guidelines. Journals
should require prospective authors to declare that
they have checked their manuscript’s reference list
for retracted articles. We believe that if this is subsequently recognized, an erratum should be published(15). Table 2 represents citations before and
after retraction, and journal impact factor (JIF),
according to reasons for retraction(10).
Some authors
19
Editor/publisher
19
17
Other*
-
12
Primary reason for retraction (per cent)
Research error
39
22
Inability to reproduce
16
20
Plagiarism
-
17
Research misconduct
37¤
17
No reason given
-
12
Other
9
11
– Category not used.
*Attorney, editor, sponsor, institutional official often with author,
or not clear.
¤ Includes presumed misconduct and may include plagiarism.
A meta-analysis of studies on scientific misconduct showed that on average, about 2 percent of
scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or
modified data or results at least once and up to
one third admitted to a variety of other questionable research practices(11). A computerized scan
of the research literature has revealed a bundle of
plagiarized articles where, the whole passages seem
95
Scientific Retraction: A synonym for pseudoscience? - Bhavisha P. Sheth, Vrinda S. Thaker
Table 2 Mean Nº of citations before and after retraction
Mean number of citations
Reason for
retraction
Before
retraction
After
retraction
Mean JIF
Research error
13.7
15.8
11.68
Inability to
reproduce
10.7
20.60
11.11
Plagiarism
2.9
5.6
6.77
Research
misconduct
38.3
23.6
11.82
No reason given
3.6
7.7
2.11
Other
3.3
10.8
8.13
Buck, Wakefield Retractions: qualms on the
peer review?
Two prominent journals have retracted papers by
Nobel laureate Linda Buck. These retractions, a
2006 Science paper and a 2005 Proceedings of
the National Academy of the Sciences (PNAS)
paper, are tied to a 2001 Nature paper that she
retracted in 2008, due to the inability “to reproduce the reported findings” and “inconsistencies
between some of the figures and data published
in the paper and the original data,” according to
the retraction. The experiments were originally
performed by her post doctoral researcher Zhihua Zou, was the first author on all three papers.
The research that won Buck the 2004 Nobel
Prize, which she shared with olfactory researcher
Richard Axel of Columbia University for their
discoveries of odorant receptors and the organization of the olfactory system, was unrelated to the
research in the retracted papers.
Similar is the case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield,
whose 1998 findings were partly discredited in
2004 and completely retracted in January 2010 by
the prestigious journal The Lancet in which they
96 were originally published. With 11 co-authors,
he claimed to have found a possible connection
between one of the most common vaccines given
to children (measles-mumps-rubella MMR) and
autism. The impact of his study has been devastating to public health as parents became fearful
of having their children given protection from
childhood diseases, protection which had previously been a medical routine.
The peer-review actually begins in earnest and
does not stop when a paper is published. So it is
common for serious problems with a paper to be
discovered only after they are published. When
this happens, the journal editors should be willing to admit error and correct their mistakes.
This actually builds the reputation for honesty of
the respective journal. Rather than removing the
“peer” from “peer review”, the definition of “peer”
expertise should be broadened to include experts
outside the academic and professional communities who have a stake in the quality of the evidence(16).
Conclusion
Although scientific retractions may be a matter of
humiliation for the authors and the journal, they
help maintain the purity and integrity of the individual scientific journals, the scientific literature
and science on the whole. Also they keep a check
on the scientists from bending the rules regarding
scientific misconduct and publication2. Afterall
it is the truth which triumphs. While retractions
are important, the scientific readership also has
a responsibility to evaluate the scientific validity
of published studies and, when necessary, correspond with the journals. The final, and most
important, lesson to be learned is that ultimately,
research mistakes and misconduct, like all human
errors, must be seen not as sources of embarrassment or failure, but rather as opportunities for
learning and improvement.
Acta Bioethica 2014; 20 (1): 93-97
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd English ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Classics; 2002: 3.
Atlas MC. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004, 92(2), 242-250.
Malaviya GN. Citation, impact factor and Indian journal of surgery. Indian J Surg 2004; 66: 371-375.
Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C. Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med
Libr Assoc 1999, Oct; 87(4): 437-443.
Nath SB, Marcus SC, and Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust 2006;
185: 152-154.
Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics. Published online: 15 November 2010.
Harmon K. Impact Factor: Can a Scientific Retraction Change Public Opinion? Scientific American, March 2010.
Poulton A. Mistakes and misconduct in the research literature: retractions just the tip of the iceberg. Med J Aust 2007;
186(6): 323-324.
Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications.
JAMA 1998; 280: 296-297.
Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF. Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 807-809.
Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.
PLoS ONE 2009; 4(5): e5738.
Minkel JR. Scan Uncovers Thousands of Copycat Scientific Articles. Scientific American, January 30, 2008.
Errami M, Hicks JM, Fisher W. “Déjà vu--a study of duplicate citations in Medline”. Bioinformatics 2008; 24(2): 243249.
Errami M, Wren JD, Hicks JM, Garner HR. “eTBLAST: a web server to identify expert reviewers, appropriate journals
and similar publications”. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35 (Web Server issue), W12–5.
Drury NE, Karamanou DM. Citation of Retracted Articles: A Call for Vigilance. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87: 670.
Shashok K. Who’s a peer? Improving peer review by including additional sources of expertise. J Participat Med 2010,
Dec; 8(2): e15.
Received: December 15, 2012
Accepted: December 17, 2012
97